Blanchard Doesn't Buy Thermite Myth

[Newtons Bit]

Newtons Bit made the same argument.

Why are you claiming the bolt-access-holes were welded shut?

Can you show me any photos - either from construction, or from the debris field or recovery effort - that show a perimeter column bolt-access-hole welded shut?

It should be easy; the Figster implied you can't find a photo that isn't brimming with bolt-access-holes welded shut.


You guys are simply guessing.

And you guessed wrong.


Max

* * *

Please find me some photos that show at least two columns without cover-plates over the access holes. Modern codes pretty much require those to be cover-plated, and with good reason. This building was designed in the 60's however, so it wouldn't be completely out of character for them not to cover-plated, but I'd need to see it to believe it.

 

[afinemadness]

Newtons Bit made the same argument.

Why are you claiming the bolt-access-holes were welded shut?

Can you show me any photos - either from construction, or from the debris field or recovery effort - that show a perimeter column bolt-access-hole welded shut?

It should be easy; the Figster implied you can't find a photo that isn't brimming with bolt-access-holes welded shut.


You guys are simply guessing.

And you guessed wrong.


Max

* * *

Once again you have the burden of proof backwards. Since you are the one making the claim that thermite was there you need to prove it was no one needs to prove the negative.

 

[Max Photon]

Please find me some photos that show at least two columns without cover-plates over the access holes. Modern codes pretty much require those to be cover-plated, and with good reason. This building was designed in the 60's however, so it wouldn't be completely out of character for them not to cover-plated, but I'd need to see it to believe it.

Once again you have the burden of proof backwards. Since you are the one making the claim that thermite was there you need to prove it was[.] no one needs to prove the negative.

Sorry kiddies, this is WTC Tower Design 101.

I don't need to prove the basic building design.

I think this speaks volumes about how...retro...you guys really are.


Uruk, since you were able to look at debris photos and satisfy yourself that perimeter column bolt-access-holes were NOT welded shut, we might need to move you up a grade.


* * *

 

[Gravy]

Present the photos and videos that show external columns being attacked by thermite, Max.

I await your evidence.

 

[BenBurch]

Present the photos and videos that show external columns being attacked by thermite, Max.

I await your evidence.

Max doesn't want to present evidence.

If he did, he knows we would only analyze it and find out what it really is.

And then he couldn't have his fun with us here where he pretends to be the only one on the planet who sees The Big Picture without evidence but with loads of taunting.

I guess what I'm saying is, Max, drop the pretense. You seem to be a nice enough guy. Hang around. Read. Listen. Learn. Other people, even those not your intellectual equals can teach you things you never knew, but you have to open you ears and your mind. And who knows, maybe along the way maybe you'll learn something to actually let you prove your case?

 

[JimBenArm]

Max doesn't want to present evidence.

If he did, he knows we would only analyze it and find out what it really is.

And then he couldn't have his fun with us here where he pretends to be the only one on the planet who sees The Big Picture without evidence but with loads of taunting.

I guess what I'm saying is, Max, drop the pretense. You seem to be a nice enough guy. Hang around. Read. Listen. Learn. Other people, even those not your intellectual equals can teach you things you never knew, but you have to open you ears and your mind. And who knows, maybe along the way maybe you'll learn something to actually let you prove your case?

Max can't drop the act or the pretense. He'd have nothing left.

 

[Max Photon]

Brent Blanchard serves up some pancakes for the 1st-graders

* * *


Guys, please!

Mr. Blanchard is the honored guest of this thread (well, his reputation is, anyway).

Let's listen to what he has to say:

One primary difference between these two collapses and a typical building implosion
was that the initial failures occurred very high up on the structures, which lead to an
extended-duration "pancake" effect down to the ground. With the weight and mass of
the upper sections forcing the floor trusses below rapidly downward, there was no way
for outer perimeter walls to fall in, so they had to fall out. A review of all photographic
images clearly show about 95% of falling debris being forced away from the footprint of
the structure, creating a giant "mushroom" effect around its perimeter.


A third-grader, without even looking up from his GameBoy, asks, "Pancakes?"

"No silly," says a second-grader, "Not pancakes, pancake. Remember what Mrs. Schmecklebender taught us in first grade? NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse. (to the tune of Frere Jacques)

Oh yeah. Right... Can I have syrup too?


* * *

 

[uk_dave]

A third-grader, without even looking up from his GameBoy, asks, "Pancakes?"

"No silly," says a second-grader, "Not pancakes, pancake. Remember what Mrs. Schmecklebender taught us in first grade? NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse. (to the tune of Frere Jacques)

Oh yeah. Right... Can I have syrup too?


* * *

Oh Max, not that old chestnut again.

Tsk tsk tsk.

ok boys and girls, for the benefit of max, here's 'understanding NIST 101 - The Janet and John Version':

Once upon a time the humble people of the land set a challenge - "Please explain how our towers failed" they cried.

The goodly NIST (an assembly of skilled and expert people) did step forth and lo they explained that the structural failure of the towers was caused by failure of the perimeter columns pulled inwards by sagging floor trusses which had been weakened by fire.

The people were happy, for they had their answer. But one little boy kept jumping up and down saying "Look at me! Look at me!! I'm great, I am. I figured out how the towers failed!!! Look at me! Pleaaaase!!"

But the people didn't look at the little boy for he had nothing useful to add to the discussion.

But that didn't stop him, for he believed that the initiation of the structural failure was being presented as a description of the progression of the failure down to the ground. He was a very earnest little boy, but no one cared what he believed because everyone knew he was wrong.

The end.

 

[Max Photon]

WTC 7 matches Brent Blanchard's description of a typical demolition.

* * *

Shhh.



ASSERTION #1
"The towers' collapse looked exactly like explosive demolitions."
PROTEC COMMENT: No they didn't. It's the "where."

When discussing similarities between the towers' collapse and an explosive demolition,
many people overlook the single question most central to any objective investigation. It
is not "how" or "when" the buildings failed, but "where" they failed. That answer holds
the key to understanding almost everything that occurred at Ground Zero.

Since their inception in the late 1800s, blasting engineers have understood that building
implosions work best when the forces of gravity are maximized. This is why blasters
always concentrate their efforts on the lowest floors of a structure. While smaller
supplemental charges can be placed on upper floors to facilitate breakage and maximize
control as the structure collapses, every implosion ever performed has followed the
basic model of obliterating structural supports on the bottom few floors first, "to get the
structure moving."


Brent, do you mean like this?


* * *

 

[Max Photon]

Blanchard is wrong that no catalyst could survive the jets' impacts.

* * *


More from Mr. Blanchard:


"...for explosives to be considered as a primary or supplemental catalyst, one
would have to accept that either, a) dozens of charges were placed on those exact
impact floors in advance and survived the violent initial explosions and 1100+ degree
Fahrenheit fires, or b) while the fires were burning, charges were installed undetected
throughout the impact floors and wired together, ostensibly by people hiding in the
buildings with boxes of explosives. There is no third choice that could adequately
explain explosives causing failure at the exact impact points.

The chemical properties of explosives and their reaction to heat render scenario A
scientifically impossible and scenario B remarkably unlikely, as we know of no explosive
compound that could withstand such force and/or heat without detaching from the
columns or simply burning off prior to detonation."


Mr. Blanchard,

Thermite in perimeter box columns could survive the cool 1100F (600C) fires no problemo. Thermite ignites at twice that temperature.

Also, I am sure you can see that thermite sitting snug-as-a-bug-in-a-rug at the bottom of a box column is not going to get dislodged.

As for placing the thermite in box columns...remember, the bolt-access-holes were not welded shut, and they were about 2/3rd of the way up a window (from the floor), so access was easy.

A net of thermite fuse was ignited by the jet's impact.


So, Mr. Blanchard, I believe there are more possibilities than you considered.

(Remember, big children admit their mistakes.)


Max

* * *

 

[Max Photon]

Brent needs to turn on his I-beams.

* * *


Brent's got up a head of steam now...


"There are other problems with both scenarios: Given the consistent weight distribution
around the outer perimeter of each structure, one would have needed access to a
prohibitively large quantity of load-bearing I-beam columns to allow "cutter charges" to
initiate failure. Those columns would have needed extensive preparation, also known as
"pre-burning", to allow the explosives to perform their function. And in order to prepare
the columns you first had to be able to see the columns, which means at least partially
removing the outer-perimeter interior walls of all blast floors, including furniture,
plumbing and conduit lines, insulation, etc."


See how the poor lad is all tangled up with explosives and cutting.

Sad.

Brent, BRENT! Wake up! Nappy-time is over.

Thermite was used to heat-weaken WTC steel.

Cutting went the way of Mr. Blankie.


Also, what the $%^! is he talking about with perimeter load-bearing I-beams?

Could someone go shake him - roughly?

 

[Arus808]

max, nothing in your posts proves that blanchard "is confused". Really.

Blanchard - works in the deomolition business, consults with demolition experts; knows his stuff


You - expert in nothing. let alone demolition


So stop right now. YOu are seriously embarrassing yourself. If Jones and Griffin can't refute blanchard, what makes you think you can?


Stop with the lies.

 

[technoextreme]

I thought thermite was used to weld steel together.

Ho hum.

Explosives are too. I don't remember why but I saw it on the Discovery channel.

Max can't drop the act or the pretense. He'd have nothing left.

True. We're the excellent conductors to his electromagnetic waves.

 

[Max Photon]

USRDA = Four servings of fresh evidence per day

* * *


Can we have some evidence now?

 

[technoextreme]

Thermite in perimeter box columns could survive the cool 1100F (600C) fires no problemo. Thermite ignites at twice that temperature.

Ahhh woo at it's best. Aluminum melts at 660C which means your thermite would go flowing all over the dam place effectively rendering MaxMop impossible. You can't have a thermite reaction if the almunimum leaks out.

 

[technoextreme]

Argg what did I just do.

 

[uk_dave]

Looking at your sig max, how did thermite 'cloak' the controlled demolition when your claim is that thermite was used to demolish the towers?

Also, you insist that thermite was used to 'heat weaken' the structure, which is basically the premise of the official account only instead of thermite we have jet fuel and office fires heat weakening exposed steel members until failure occured. Why is thermite even needed?

Seems to me you have a solution in search of a problem.

 

[Crungy]

A net of thermite fuse was ignited by the jet's impact.

* * *
Can we have some evidence now?

Could you please provide said evidence for your Stundie.

 

[pomeroo]

* * *


Guys, please!

Mr. Blanchard is the honored guest of this thread (well, his reputation is, anyway).

Let's listen to what he has to say:

One primary difference between these two collapses and a typical building implosion
was that the initial failures occurred very high up on the structures, which lead to an
extended-duration "pancake" effect down to the ground. With the weight and mass of
the upper sections forcing the floor trusses below rapidly downward, there was no way
for outer perimeter walls to fall in, so they had to fall out. A review of all photographic
images clearly show about 95% of falling debris being forced away from the footprint of
the structure, creating a giant "mushroom" effect around its perimeter.


A third-grader, without even looking up from his GameBoy, asks, "Pancakes?"

"No silly," says a second-grader, "Not pancakes, pancake. Remember what Mrs. Schmecklebender taught us in first grade? NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse. (to the tune of Frere Jacques)

Oh yeah. Right... Can I have syrup too?


* * *

Sorry, Max, as your puerile lies have been systematically refuted and you have been revealed as an ignorant poseur, you are growing increasingly desperate. We all know that NIST specifically rejected the "pancake theory of collapse." We also know that although NIST explained the collapse mechanism, the floors certainly did pancake.

Your remote-controlled planes theory was demolished. There was no thermite used at the WTC complex on the day of the jihadist attacks. Your fact-free performance has grown very tiresome.

 

[pomeroo]

* * *


Brent's got up a head of steam now...


"There are other problems with both scenarios: Given the consistent weight distribution
around the outer perimeter of each structure, one would have needed access to a
prohibitively large quantity of load-bearing I-beam columns to allow "cutter charges" to
initiate failure. Those columns would have needed extensive preparation, also known as
"pre-burning", to allow the explosives to perform their function. And in order to prepare
the columns you first had to be able to see the columns, which means at least partially
removing the outer-perimeter interior walls of all blast floors, including furniture,
plumbing and conduit lines, insulation, etc."


See how the poor lad is all tangled up with explosives and cutting.

Sad.

Brent, BRENT! Wake up! Nappy-time is over.

Thermite was used to heat-weaken WTC steel.

Cutting went the way of Mr. Blankie.


Also, what the $%^! is he talking about with perimeter load-bearing I-beams?

Could someone go shake him - roughly?

Thermite is not used to weaken steel. You've been caught lying again.